HC Deb 14 March 1974 vol 870 cc364-70
The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore)

The House will know that 345 people, including about 200 British subjects, lost their lives in the most terrible air disaster ever to occur, when a Turkish Airlines DC-10 crashed north of Paris on Sunday 3rd March.

I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing deepest sympathy to the relatives and friends of all those who were killed in this appalling disaster.

The French authorities have set up a commission of inquiry to investigate the cause of the accident. The chairman of the commission invited the United Kingdom to send an observer to be present as soon as it was established that there were so many British passengers involved and I am grateful to him for allowing this facility. A senior member of the staff of the Chief Inspector of Accidents in my Department went to Paris the day following the accident.

The investigation is still in the preliminary stage and it is unlikely that the report of the commission will be completed for many months. There is evidence that the rear cargo door on the port side became detached as the aircraft climbed through an altitude of 13,000 feet. Inspection of the door, which was found some 15 kilometres from the main accident site, showed indications that it had come open in flight, causing sudden decompression of the cargo hold. The air pressure in the passenger cabin appears to have distorted the cabin floor, disrupting the cables to the main flying controls in the tail to such an extent that the aircraft went out of control. This information was passed on 5th March to the Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible for British airworthiness standards, and the authority immediately alerted the only British operator of DC-10 aircraft, Laker Airways. This company at once ordered the rear cargo doors of its DC-10 aircraft to be closed permanently, and a metal plate was screwed over the lock handles.

Shortly after the accident the Federal Aviation Administration of the United States of America, which originally granted a certificate of airworthiness for the aircraft, issued an airworthiness directive, compliance with which is mandatory for aircraft registered in the United States. This requires certain modifications to be installed before further flight and introduces a procedure for the flight crew to make pre-flight checks on the door latching mechanisms. Copies of this directive were sent to all States operating DC10s. These modifications had already been embodied in the Laker Airways aircraft prior to delivery. Other aspects of the directive, in particular the pre-flight check, were made effective immediately. The Civil Aviation Authority has asked me to emphasise that the operator is giving the fullest possible co-operation in implementing these measures. The authority is also in close touch with the manufacturer.

The authority, while satisfied with the present measures taken by Laker Airways, assures me that it will not hesitate to take any further steps which in the light of further information appear to be necessary in the interests of safety.

Mr. Michael Heseltine

I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the Minister's expressions of sympathy. It will certainly always be a source of great sadness to me that one of my last duties as a member of the preceding Government was to send the appropriate messages of condolence and to write to the next-of-kin of those who died with whom I had worked personally in government.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman four questions? First, what similarities does the Minister see between this accident and the incident 22 months ago at Windsor, Ontario? Secondly, what action did the Civil Aviation Authority take in this country in connection with the Laker DC10s after the Federal Aviation Ad- ministration in America had studied that Canadian incident?

Thirdly, when were the modifications requested in the recent FAA notice incorporated in the Laker DC10s? Fourthly—and I understand the difficulties here—will the right hon. Gentleman look into the possibility of a standby arrangement, in terrible circumstances of this sort, for the early collation of information for relatives, who are often desperate for news and who feel that each tragedy has to create its own machinery, with the inevitable inexperience and confusion that arises?

Mr. Shore

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his expression of sympathy and concern, which I know is very personal because of his recent and close experience with my Department. I shall certainly consider his last suggestion to see whether some kind of standby arrangement can be made to help the much distressed relatives of those involved in disasters of this kind.

On the face of it, there appears to be some similarity between this disaster and what occurred in the Ontario crash in 1972. I should not like to go further than that, because I do not want to anticipate the findings of the French commission. On the second point, about the action taken by our own Civil Aviation Authority after the FAA's recommendation, we carried out the recommendations at once. They were not mandatory regulations at that stage in the United States, but our own Civil Aviation Authority nevertheless carried them out here in Britain, and I am very glad that that was so, as I am sure the House will be, too. As for modifications, I understand that there is a whole series of modifications for this door, but my information is that new doors are being supplied which will come on top of the major modifications which had already and previously been carried out in the aircraft concerned.

Mr. David Steel

My right hon. and hon. Friends naturally wish to be associated with the Minister's expressions of condolence. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the present arrangements for the exchange of information between airline and airline and between one country's aviation authority and another on what appear to be minor incidents but which later may prove to have been major pointers to some aircraft defect? In other words, did the Civil Aviation Authority know of the incident 22 months ago?

Mr. Shore

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his expression of sympathy. In reply to his question—yes. I am sure that our own Civil Aviation Authority is very much on the ball and keeps in very close touch with the findings and recommendations of other authorities with similar responsibilities in other countries. It is because it was so much on the ball that we were able to carry out the modifications to the doors ahead of the mandatory regulation which has now been put out by the FAA.

Regarding the kind of measures that might be taken in the world generally to make sure that each separate air authority knows the findings and recommendations of the others, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a categorical answer at the moment. It would be premature for me to say that I am satisfied, but I shall look into the question.

Mr. Dalyell

On this point, not only with the advantage of hindsight but with the tragedies surrounding the Vanguard Echo Charlie some years ago, is there not a case for tightening up the IATA regulations in the reporting of near accidents, and drawing technical conclusions? Could the Government consider a general inquiry and contact IATA?

Mr. Shore

I assure my hon. Friend that I shall give further attention to his suggestion.

Mr. Warren

Bearing in mind that many countries rely on the certification of their aircraft by the Civil Aviation Authority in this country, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the need to draw the attention of the authority to the requirement that all external doors on an aircraft should be seen to be locked by the pilot in the cockpit having a positive indication of that locking, rather than that he should rely on the good will and skill of people outside the cockpit before the aircraft's departure?

Mr. Shore

I shall look into that point, but I assume that it was met already in the practices, certainly so far as this country is concerned.

Mr. Watkins

In adding to the expressions of sympathy to the bereaved, may I say that there is a personal element in this for many of my hon. Friends and myself, because amongst those killed in this appalling accident was the late Mr. Jim Conway, the general secretary of my own trade union, whom a number of us have known and respected for many years.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the prospective further purchases of this aircraft amongst British airliners? As there appears to be growing evidence of a fundamental design fault, will he ensure that no further purchases are made until this matter is cleared up satisfactorily?

Mr. Shore

It would be wrong to prejudge the findings of the French inquiry. As for purchases of this aircraft, I am informed that we have only two, which are operated by Laker. A third one is is on order, which will be fitted with all the latest modifications, taking full account of the FAA directives.

Mr. Rossi

On the basis of the information given to the House this afternoon there would seem to be indications of negligence. If that is the case, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the provisions of the Warsaw Convention offer sufficient compensation for the dependants of those killed in this crash, bearing in mind the number of years that the Warsaw Convention has been in existence and the fact that its terms may be outdated?

Mr. Shore

At this stage I cannot say anything which would prejudge the result of the inquiry. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the Warsaw Convention—which may not wholly apply to the Turkish airline concerned—and the terms of compensation and ceilings therein, I shall not be surprised if they have to be looked at again in the light of changes in the world and in the light of the appalling continuing problems of inflation.

Mr. Whitehead

Is my hon. Friend aware that all of us who lost personal friends in this air crash will wish to be associated with the sincere condolences that he has expressed? Can he tell the House whether the Civil Aviation Authority or the Department of Trade was aware that major modifications in this aircraft were recommended almost two years ago by the American National Transportation Safety Board, although at that time they were not mandatory?

Mr. Shore

Yes, certainly the Civil Aviation Authority was aware of the American report and recommendations, but the ones that it took on board straight away were those that related to the changes in the door, and it is, of course, the changes in the door design which were made mandatory by the FAA only three days ago.

Mr. Wiggin

Having unhappily had some personal experience of the aftermath of the great air disaster, may I heartily endorse the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on the question of communications in the ensuing few hours? If these could be improved, it would make a great deal of difference to the suffering of relatives and others.

May I ask the Minister to expand a little further on the question of compensation? A maximum figure of just over £7,000 compensation for victims under the Warsaw Convention is totally inadequate in the modern day and age. The Guatemala Convention remains to be ratified, and perhaps the Minister can consult his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to see whether he can press certain countries which are being somewhat slow in ratifying this Convention into doing so, to try to raise this compensation level to a more suitable figure.

Mr. Shore

I shall certainly consult my right hon. Friend upon the question of compensation, although, as the hon. Gentleman clearly understands, it is, as it were, for one country to propose and for the international community to give its consent.

On the first point concerning the few hours immediately after such a disaster, when relatives are particularly apprehensive and distressed, we shall see what we can do to make communications easier. We should also examine the follow-up arrangements, because the problem does not, unhappily, end in a few hours, but continues for several days or weeks.